Guiding
Principles
for
University
Collaborations
APRIL 2012
CAUT Guiding Principles for University Collaborations
As collaborations between universities1 and external individuals and organizations
(donors, corporations, governmental agencies and bodies, NGOs, and foundations)
proliferate, it is vital to have a clear set of principles to protect academic integrity and
the public interest. The following principles cover various major donor-institutional and
inter-institutional collaborative agreements, ranging from individual donors providing
funding for a university institute or centre to broad strategic alliances such as the
University of Alberta’s $10-million collaboration with Imperial Oil. After each principle,
some specification is offered to clarify the context and provide some parameters to
guide policy development and practice in universities.
While there can be real benefits to various donor agreements and collaborative
arrangements, some have threatened or compromised core academic principles and the
public missions of universities.
This statement is intended to provide guidance and recommendations for: (a)
universities in developing policies and procedures governing donor agreements and
collaborations; (b) governance review, monitoring, and assessment of such agreements
and collaborations; (c) faculty members and other members of the academic workforce
in thinking through a range of fundamental professional responsibilities and rights that
are implicated and affected by donor agreements and collaborations; and (d) academic
staff associations in negotiating collective agreement provisions to protect the academic
freedom and other academic rights of their members.
1. Protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy in research, teaching,
publication, service, and extramural speech.
Protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy should be predominant and
prevailing considerations in developing, deciding upon, and assessing donor and other
collaborations. They are fundamental to the integrity of academic work and of the
university itself.
It is fundamental for a democratic society to have an autonomous academy in which
academic staff have academic freedom in their teaching, their research, their
extramural speech, and their speech about institutional matters. Academic freedom is
essential if academic staff are to fulfil their professional and social responsibilities in
generating, sharing, and interpreting knowledge that can inform decisions about
products and important public policy issues.
Explicit protection of academic freedom must be incorporated into every
donor/collaboration agreement. Academic freedom must take priority over the shortterm potential of individual faculty, departments, or of the university to realize material
benefits from such work. Better not to have the agreements and the monies than to
compromise these values and become essentially a research and development outpost
of donor, corporate, or other outside organizational interests. As Canadian Nobel
laureate John Polanyi warned, “At a certain point…we don’t have universities any more,
1
These guidelines apply equally to the growing variety of university-affiliated bodies, such as
university research foundations, centres and institutes, that enter into collaborative relationships.
Canadian Association of University Teachers
1
CAUT Guiding Principles for University Collaborations
but outlying branches of industry. Then all the things that industry turns to universities
for – breadth of knowledge, far time horizons and independent voice – are lost.”
a. Clear detail must be provided about how faculty may apply for funding in
relation to a donor or other collaborative agreement, and what evaluation and
selection criteria will be used. Any grants or research funding related to an
agreement should be evaluated and awarded using academic methods of
independent impartial peer review. Anyone involved in the peer review and
awarding processes should not be in a position to derive any financial benefit
from the agreement or its corporate donors/partners. Thus, for any work that
is covered by the agreement, proposals should be evaluated by nonparticipating faculty competent to assess the merit of the proposals. Impartial
peer review in the selection of research projects is the best way to protect
academic freedom by ensuring that merit is the basis of the evaluation.
University academic staff must have effective and clear control of any
committee that reviews, selects, and finally approves research conducted as
part of the collaboration
b. The planning, design, data collection, analysis and dissemination of results
should be under the control of the researchers, not the donor or
organizational partner. In the conduct of the work, researchers will have
access to all data and findings being collected in the project. It is not
acceptable for researchers to be part of a project in which they are unaware
of and/or do not have access to data from the larger project.
c. Agreements cannot permit the donor or collaborators to have any right to
change the content of publications nor permit delays in publication for longer
than 60 days, and then only if there is a compelling reason for the delay. This
applies to the work of faculty, graduate students, postdocs, academic
professionals and undergraduate students.
d. Any interference with a researcher’s right and responsibility to publish
results, regardless of effect on the collaborating organization, is
unacceptable.
e. Agreements should explicitly recognize the absolute right of researchers to
publicly disclose information about risks to research participants or the
general public or threats to the public interest that become known in the
course of their research.
f. Restrictions on relationships between faculty or students and “competitors” of
the collaboration partner should be minimized.2
2
(a) The group of “competitors” should be defined in advance at the time of entering into an industry
collaboration agreement, should be as limited as possible, and should in any event include only forprofit
entities.
(b) The “when” should be very clear, covering only work done simultaneously for the
corporate partner and the competitor.
(c) The “who” should be very clear, covering only the same faculty member or graduate
student.
Canadian Association of University Teachers
2
CAUT Guiding Principles for University Collaborations
2. Protect academic integrity in the research and educational functions of the
university and its faculty, postdocs, students, and professionals.
The protection of academic integrity involves more than protection against direct
intrusion on the academic freedom of the researchers and the autonomy of the
university. Integrity can also be compromised by indirect distortion of the core
academic relationships and functions of universities and their faculty. It is very
important that various aspects of academic relationships within the university not be
inappropriately influenced by donor or other collaborative research arrangements. Nor
should the overall work of the university and its units be distorted by such agreements.
a. In developing agreements, it is necessary to ensure that educational
programs at the undergraduate and graduate level will not be unduly
influenced or distorted by the arrangements. Corporate funding of
departments, for example, should not lead to students doing narrow work in
the service of the funders at the expense of the usual degree program
requirements, nor should it result in change in the curriculum.
b. Relationships between faculty and graduate students should be safeguarded
by ensuring a bright line between the involvement or non-involvement of the
latter in collaborative agreements and their admission, program choices, and
evaluation. Collaborating researchers employed by the donor or collaborating
organization should not be involved in the recruitment or evaluation of
students.
c. The principal supervisor of any student undertaking research as part of the
collaborative agreement should not have a direct or indirect financial interest
in the collaborating organization.
d. The longer term strategic goals of the department, college, and institution
should not be diverted or distorted by the shorter term goals of the
collaborative agreements and donor arrangements.
e. The university must ensure that there is no negative impact on the work of
others within the department/faculty/university who choose not to be part of
a collaborative agreement.
f. In developing agreements, consideration should be given to ways in which
the additional resources provided can support ancillary work in the university
not directly undertaken through the agreement (e.g., tithing grants to fund
non-funded research and indirect costs of the agreement that otherwise
would have to be borne by the university). The threat of distortion is in part a
function of the proportion of the department/program/college resources
devoted to the agreement relative to the overall resources of the unit in
question. It is also a function of the proportion of
(d) The “what” should be very clear, covering only similar work as defined in advance at
the time the faculty member’s project is funded through the industry collaboration agreement.
Cornell, 2005, p. 13.
Canadian Association of University Teachers
3
CAUT Guiding Principles for University Collaborations
department/program/college faculty expected to receive much or all of their
funding through the agreement.
g. Serious consideration should be given to the likely effect of the agreement on
projects/programs traditionally conducted in the public interest. As in #2.f,
where possible, consideration should be given to ways in which the additional
resources provided can support that university’s work.
h. Academic facilities and classrooms should not be used as sites for commercial
marketing and promotion for the donor or corporate collaborator, or any
affiliated entity. Faculty must ensure that their universities have clear and
consistent policies and practices that prohibit companies from distributing
meals, gifts, samples, etc., to academic staff and/or students, and that bar
non-authorized site visits by marketing representatives.
i.
The donor’s, corporation’s, or partner organization’s power to terminate the
agreement prior to the expected term, or to lower the originally committed
funding level, must be restricted to avoid covert pressure on faculty research
agendas and outcomes. Agreements should contain a provision that the
partner will pay the salaries of project personnel for a stated period of time in
the event that the partner decides to terminate the agreement before the
agreed-upon date or to decrease the originally contemplated funding level.
3. Protect the university’s commitment to the free and open exchange of ideas
and discoveries.
A central feature of what makes a university a university is that it pursues and
advances knowledge in the broader interests of society. That is part of what
distinguishes it from being a corporate lab or the job shop of another organization. That
distinction should be evident not only in the freedom of faculty and other academic
employees to publish their results freely and openly, but also in the intellectual property
policies of the university and the provisions of the collective agreement. Ownership of
the scholarly intellectual property by an academic is a vital component of academic
freedom.3 As well, at its core a university produces knowledge for the general public not
for any particular individual, corporate, or organizational interest, including its own
material interest. Intellectual property rights should be pursued in the broad public
interest.
a. No agreement should contain any provision that permits or implies that the
donor or corporate collaborator has the right to forbid faculty or graduate
students from disclosing the agreement’s sponsorship of research.
3
See University of British Columbia and University of British Columbia Faculty Association 125 L.A.C.
(4th) 1, 2004 CLB 13966,76 confirmed in 2006 CLB 1705 BCLRB No B56/2006, CASE NO: 51071
“Ownership of the copyright in work produced in the course of employment by an academic author,
rather than the university employer is important to support, foster and preserve academic freedom
...”3
Canadian Association of University Teachers
4
CAUT Guiding Principles for University Collaborations
b. Classified research and/or confidential corporate research that is not intended
for publication and/or dissemination are never appropriate within a university
research setting, and should never be permitted.
c. Agreements cannot give donors/partners/collaborating corporations privileged
access to or commercial rights to “background” academic research, which by
definition was not funded by the industry sponsors but by public and other
sources not party to the agreement.
d. Intellectual property in relation to a donor or corporate collaboration should
be consistent with the faculty association collective agreement or, in the
absence of collective agreement language, consistent with customary practice
for intellectual property created by academic staff in the university.
e. Licensing of inventions derived from agreement or donor-funded work should
always reserve academic use and distribution rights, and should be nonexclusive to the extent reasonably possible.
f. Even if an exclusive license is granted, all agreements should include a
provision protecting the university’s right and the right of the researchers to
freely use and distribute research methods and results to other researchers in
academic settings.
4. Protect against real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, which
compromise academic integrity.
One of the greatest threats to the freedom, autonomy, and integrity of academic work,
and to the public’s support of and confidence in that work, is conflicts of interest, in
which professionals have a material interest in the outcomes of their work that might
affect their professional judgment. Similarly, institutions can experience pressures to
attract particular research funding or certain types of research activities that are selfsustaining, which may compromise their independence and public trust. Disclosure is an
important mechanism for addressing conflict of interest in the academy. But simply
disclosing such conflicts is not enough to instil confidence in the public and to protect
the integrity of the academic work in some highly sensitive and egregious situations.
There is considerable social science evidence of funding effects on research outcomes in
key realms of scientific work such as tobacco research and clinical drug trials.
Disclosure relies upon the professional ethics and judgment of the academic to override
the material interests of the individual. In general bright lines are required to prohibit
even the possibility of professional judgment being compromised by the researchers’
material interests.
a. Institutional and individual financial conflicts of interest involving any donor
or collaborating organization must be declared and disclosed to the university
and where appropriate to the public funding agency.
b. Researchers and their immediate families should have no direct or indirect
financial interest in any organization funding a collaborative agreement (e.g.,
equity in the company that owns the product, receiving a salary, being a
Canadian Association of University Teachers
5
CAUT Guiding Principles for University Collaborations
consultant or serving on the scientific advisory committee for the
organization).
c. Similarly, no member of the university’s senior administration (at the level of
president or vice-president) should have direct or indirect financial interest in
any donor or collaborative partner organization (such as membership on
corporate board or owning of stock).
5. Ensure transparency.
Transparency is an important mechanism for protecting the public good. Open access to
knowledge can contribute to greater protection of the public interest, and protect the
independent role of the faculty and universities in serving the public.
a. At a minimum, all agreements over $250,000 should be public documents.
b. There should be assessments of the effectiveness and effects (in light of the
guiding principles elaborated in this statement) of each agreement at regular
intervals within the term of the agreement and these assessments should be
public documents made available to all members of the university
community.
c. An independent post-agreement evaluation plan must be part of the
agreement. The results of the evaluation should be a public document readily
available to the academic community.
d. A database of concerns/complaints that arise during the term of the
agreement should be maintained and should be publicly available.
6. Academic staff shall play the central role in decisions regarding the
initiation, development, implementation, monitoring, and assessment of donor
and other collaborative agreements.
An important safeguard of the academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the
integrity of academic work conducted in these arrangements is to ensure that academic
staff are involved in each stage of the agreement. This helps in foregrounding the public
interest and public mission of universities in participating in donor agreements and
collaborations.
At the same time, there are occasions in which collegial governance structures can be
corrupted. Faculty committees may act in complicity with a culture of prioritizing the
market logic over the academic logics of academic freedom and integrity. They may be
captured by a sense of what is “realistic” to ask of donors and partners to an
agreement. They may be reluctant to oppose administrative initiatives and pressure for
fear of retaliation or out of an overly narrow and constrained view of their role in the
decision- making process. It may, on occasion be necessary for national bodies to step
in and act in defence of academic freedom, autonomy, and integrity of the academic
work.
Canadian Association of University Teachers
6
CAUT Guiding Principles for University Collaborations
a. No donor or other collaborative agreement may be allowed to intrude on
academic governance or contravene existing academic policies or collective
agreements.
b. In no case, should a funder or a private collaborator or their representatives
have any voice in matters related to the academic affairs of the institution or
academic aspects of the collaboration.
c. Donor and other collaborative agreements should be governed by a
committee at least 2/3rds of whom are elected academic staff members who
do not hold administrative positions. The academic staff component should
include both those who are involved in the agreement and those that are not.
d. The day to day management of the agreement should be conducted
predominantly by university faculty not by representatives of the external
funder.
7. Ensure that the structure of employment for researchers protects academic
freedom and academic autonomy, and that it does not compromise the
structure and preponderance of tenured and tenure track faculty employment.
It is in the public interest and the interest of the public missions of the university for
members of the academic workforce to have safeguards to ensure substantive and
procedural fairness and financial autonomy that are at the core of independent
professional work. It does not serve students, the institution, or society well if
researchers in donor or other collaborative agreements are essentially professionals for
hire, working largely on commission.
a. Ensure that faculty and researchers involved in donor agreements and/or
collaborative arrangements have explicit protection for academic freedom,
under a collective agreement.
b. Ensure that faculty and researchers involved in donor or other collaborative
agreements are not dependent for most of their university-related income on
work covered by those arrangements.
c. Donor and other collaborative agreements should protect and support tenure
and security of employment for participating academic staff; agreements
should neither be based on nor significantly increase the employment of nontenure track or soft-money academic employment.
Canadian Association of University Teachers
7
CAUT Guiding Principles for University Collaborations
REFERENCES
Jennifer Washburn, Big Oil Goes to College: An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration
Contracts between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities.
[Executive Summary]. Washington: Centre For American Progress, 2010.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/big_oil_execsumm.pdf
Cornell University, Faculty Statement of Principles & Best Practices Concerning
Strategic Corporate Alliances. Spring 2005.
Canadian Association of University Teachers
8